If the left, if the victors of May 11, have sometimes had illusions about the depth of the reciprocal movement which brought about their triumph, the incidents of these days should bring them back to a fairer appreciation of the values ​​present.

I have too much experience of the public to conceive for a moment that the last elections were the result of a conversion of the greatest number, either to radical theories as far as these are defined - or to socialist ideas. The truth is more modest, and we would be making an irreparable error if we counted on a transformation of the public mind.

You are exaggerating, you will say, and you are denying the very obvious, I don't think so, and it is enough to tighten the question a little.

Politicians and I do not give this word any pejorative meaning - politicians, I say, would be strangely mistaken if they attributed the success achieved yesterday to their own value. In reality, they were charged with an imperative, albeit unspoken, mandate: that of modifying the social state in such a way that the voter lives better, so that he no longer feels the burden of the future weighing on his back. -war.

By what means ? The public doesn't know it. He accomplished an act of faith, he gave his trust. Woe to us, woe to democracy if his expectations are disappointed, he will forgive neither the majority nor parliamentarism.

And in fact, could it be otherwise? The Cartel does not have the means to make a false move, it must succeed, it must at all costs, at any cost, because it has promised a cheaper life, greater freedoms, blossoming of reforms that have been pushed aside for too long.

Let us in no way hide the difficulties of the task. It is necessary, nothing more and nothing less, to implement revolutionary measures, not only revolutionary in relation to the status quo ante, but transformative of society itself.

There is a very curious phenomenon to observe at the moment. Never has the anti-capitalist demand been more discreet, less visible; it is, in short, an attempt to penetrate the private economy, but only the beginning of an attempt.

When the socialist position was announced, and without even any action having been initiated, the reaction occurred. The incident of the Presidency, the attitude of the Senate and the Congress were backlashes which were logical, inevitable, which marked the desire to resist, even on questions of people to which a symbolic value is attached. This shows the opposition serious reforms will encounter, those which must modify the course of things born of the war and the habits adopted over the past five years.

A question immediately arises: will these measures be socialist or radical in essence?

I would be remiss if I caused the slightest pain to the radicals taken as a whole. Among their activists and among their elected representatives there are people who are not advanced, this expression means absolutely nothing, but who have a wide open mind. I would be tempted to write that these are socialists who ignore themselves, but the others, but the great mass of their troops? Where are the radical formulas, the radical program? As I fear that these brave people have remained in Combism and do not conceive politics differently than in 1910 The Radical Party itself, and I know examples of it, does it not, by widely opening its ranks to repentant children, give shelter to good opportunists, whose nature always and by principle is on the side of the handle?

No, in reality, there is only one doctrine, one rule whose game can get us out of trouble, it is the methodical, prudent and reasoned application of constructive socialism, of a pre-socialism that Two years ago, I had the opportunity to expose it in these columns, not suspecting then that events would allow us to attempt it. Will the radicals lend a hand to such an attempt? Can the socialist portion, numerically insufficient to carry out its program itself, count on real support, in all circumstances, from the radical portion?

That's the whole problem. It is, we will agree, of great interest. Immediate interest and future interest. Immediate interest, in the sense that the majority will go bankrupt if they think, by means of small measures, to overcome the problem of exchange rates and that of the cost of living. If the majority must only come together to vote on a few political measures, it will quickly tire the country which sent it to Parliament to do practical work. But also interest for the future because the experiment, if it should fail, will be a severe blow, I do not hide it, for our reformism. The demonstration of the incapacity of the bourgeoisie to adapt, the impotence of socialist reformism to penetrate capitalism, these are all facts from which we will have the duty to draw the consequences.

The coalition which appears so fragile at this moment must therefore tighten up if it wants to escape the danger which threatens it, it must maintain itself especially in the event of a serious reaction, which will undoubtedly occur in a short time. It must remain, especially in the event of desperate resistance from the Senate.